WHAT 


ITY 


HE 


iJ     VJ'     All 


^^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented   by  On(£.  S^C  V^(£^V^r-'' 

c3 


BR  123  .C85  1904 
Cushman,  Herbert  Ernest, 

1865-1944. 
What  is  Christianity? 


BY 

HERBERT  ERNEST  CUSHMAN,   A.M. 

Ph.D. 

HISTORY  OF  ANCIENT  PHILOSOPHY. 

TRANSLATED    FROM    THE   GERMAN    OF 

WILHELM    WINDELBAND. 

One  Volume,  Cloth     .... 

.     $2.50 

THE  TRUTH  IN  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE. 

One  Volume,  Cloth     .... 

.      $0.50 

WHAT   IS 
CHRISTIANITY? 

The  Russell  Lecture  of  1904  delivered 

BEFORE    THE    FACULTIES    AND    StUDENTS 

OF  TuFTs  College 


HERBERT  ERNEST    CUSHMAN,   Ph.D. 

Professor  of  Philosophy  in  Tufts  College 


* 


Tufts  College,  Massachusetts 
1904 


Copyright,  1904 

UNIVERSALIST    PUBLISHING    HOUSE 

Boston 


Stanbope  iprcss 

F.    H.    GILSON    COMPANY 
BOSTON,     U.  S.  A. 


TO 

C.    A.    W.    T. 

Whose  Christian  life  has  made  her 
world  abound 


THE  Russell  Lecture  is  given  annu- 
ally at  Tufts  College  at  the  opening 
of  the  College  year,  on  the  foundation  of 
the  late  James  Russell.  By  the  terms  of 
the  bequest,  the  lectureship  is  in  charge 
of  the  trustees  of  the  college  and  was 
established  for  the  consideration  of  the 
following  subjects  : 

I.  The  importance  of  Christian  Faith 
and  Belief  in  the  formation  of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  good  citizen  and  the  good  man. 

1.  The  sufficiency  of  the  promises  of 
the  Gospel  to  meet  the  reasonable  wants 
of  man  both  in  time  and  eternity. 

The  lecture  of  1904  is  addressed  to  the 
topic  embodied  in  the  first  subject. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


I.    Introduction 7 

II.  Christianity  and  Politics  ....  12 

III.  Christianity  and  Society        »      ,      .  16 

IV.  Christianity    and    the    Healing    of 

Disease 22 

V.  Christianity  and  Morality     ...  26 

VI.  Christianity  and  Science   ....  34 

VII.    Conclusion     .      , ,  .  i 


What   Is   Christianity  r 


? 


I 

INTRODUCTION 

'^^HREE  factors  must  be  reckoned 
%i^  within  estimating  the  importance  of 
a  world  movement  like  Christianity.  These 
three  are:  (i)  the  essential  principle  of 
the  movement ;  (2)  the  incidental  results  ; 
(3)  the  antagonistic  forces.  With  the 
third,  the  forces  antagonistic  to  Christian- 
ity, we  shall  have  nothing  to  do ;  for 
although  in  the  beginnings  of  Christian- 
ity, such  forces  may  not  have  seemed  to 
be  opposed  to  its  essential  purpose,  they 
sooner  or  later  came  out  in  their  true 
color  under  the  brute  test  of  time.  And 
this  is  the  task  of  the  Christian  preacher 
—  to  emphasize  line  upon  line  the  contrast 


Mbat  Us  Cbristtaniti^  ? 


between  what  society  knows  to  be  right 
and  what  antagonizes  the  right.  Our  task 
is,  rather,  the  more  difficult  and  theoretical 
one  of  discriminating,  if  we  can  —  and 
I  think  we  can  —  between  the  essential 
working  principle  of  Christianity  and  what 
is  so  easily  confused  with  this  principle, 
viz.,  the  incidental  results.  What  I  mean 
by  incidental,  will  completely  appear  only 
in  the  course  of  our  discussion.  But  if 
you  ask  at  the  beginning  for  a  definition 
of  the  word  incidental,  I  answer  that  I 
mean  the  transient,  not  the  permanent  in 
Christianity;  the  casual,  not  the  constant 
in  Christianity ;  the  adventitious  and  for- 
tuitous, not  the  necessary ;  the  field  to 
which  the  principle  of  Christianity  may  be 
applied,  not  the  essential  principle  itself. 
This  distinction  is  common  enough;  for  ex- 
ample, we  oftenspeakof  aduty  and  the  plea- 
sures incidental  to  a  duty.  Our  question 
here,  therefore,  is  this,  —  what  is  essentially 
Christian  in  human  life  as  contrasted  with 
the  good  results  that  have  indirectly  grown 

8 


Mbat  1F6  Cbrtstianlt^  ? 


up  with  Christianity,  or  that  have  developed 
in  the  natural  course  of  things  ? 

Of  course  it  must  be  remembered  that 
many  eminent  men  hold  that  the  sum  total 
of  human  good  is  Christian  in  its  source ; 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  such  an  over  zeal- 
ous claim  has  always  been  a  positive  harm 
to  the  Christian  cause.  Claims  thus  in- 
definite give  to  Christianity  no  specific 
working  principle.  By  confounding  the 
essential  Christian  principle  with  its  inci- 
dental good  results,  we  place  a  great  burden 
on  Christianity.  Suppose,  for  example, 
to  the  question.  What  is  the  mission  of 
Christianity  ?  it  is  repHed,  ''  Christ  is  our 
Saviour,"  or  "  Christ  is  our  Saviour  from 
sin,"  the  reply  does  not  help  the  ques- 
tioner. In  what  sense  is  he  our  Saviour? 
Does  he  save  us  from  everything  evil? 
Does  he  save  us  from  disease  ?  Was  his 
mission  to  save  us  from  the  coal  trusts, 
from  gray  hair,  from  typhoid  fever,  from 
the  need  of  food  ?  Does  Christ's  mission 
fail  if  the  sick  man  is  not  saved  from  work. 


mbat  1[0  Cbristiantt^  ? 


the  rich  man  from  enwui,  the  farmer  from 
bad  weather,  the  nervous  man  from  the 
toothache,  the  industrious  man  from  bad 
investments  ?  Now,  if  we  make  universal 
claims  for  Christianity,  we  must  admit  that 
it  is  responsible  for  everything.  And  are 
we  willing  to  admit  that  Christianity  is  a 
failure  because  it  has  not  set  the  world 
right?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Christ  did  not 
come  to  set  the  world  right.  He  had  a 
definite,  particular  and  specific  purpose; 
not  the  indefinite  hope  of  establishing  an 
era  of  complacency. 

It  was  the  aim  and  purpose  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  define  his  mission  by  showing 
its  meaning  on  this  side  and  on  that.  He 
says  in  St.  John  lo:  lo,  "1  am  come  that 
they  might  have  life,  and  that  they  might 
have  it  more  abundantly."  This  was  the 
text  of  his  activity.  By  parable,  by  mir- 
acle, by  loving  endeavor,  by  adapting  him- 
self to  their  needs,  he  tried  to  show  men 
just  what  he  meant  by  abundant  life. 
Life,    abundant    life !      This,    the    Alpha 

ID 


Wibat  ITS  Cbristtanlt^  ? 


and  Omega  of  his  teaching,  was  given  a 
more  exact  and  a  new  definition.  He 
showed  how  this  common  everyday  Hfe, 
this  Hfe  of  bread  and  butter,  of  change  and 
decay,  this  Hfe  of  death,  this  Hfe  that  can 
sink  so  low  as  to  become  only  an  intermit- 
tent series  of  sensations,  is  a  Hfe  of  infinite 
possibilities.  The  principle  of  such  an  in- 
finite life  is  essential.  All  else  is  inciden- 
tal. I  shall  try  to  put  into  modern  phrase- 
ology this  definite  purpose  of  Christ,  and 
show  what  he  meant  by  abundance  of  life. 


II 


Mbat  irs  Cbristianitp  ? 


II 

CHRISTIANITY    AND    POLITICS 

♦fTN  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
II  Christ  was  not  a  political  agitator, 
nor  did  he  teach  any  political  propaganda. 
He  always  conspicuously  avoided  political 
questions,  as  in  his  oft  quoted  reply  to  the 
Pharisees  and  Herodians,  Mark  12:17, 
"  Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are 
Caesar's,  and  to  God  the  things  that  are 
God's."  Whenever  he  denounced  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  it  was  because 
(Luke  II  :  14)  they  were  hypocrites,  and 
not  because  they  had  political  authority. 

Now  if  political  revolution,  political  re- 
formation or  political  conservation  is  to 
bring  the  abundant  life,  the  work  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  to  be  compared  with  that  of 
many  men.  Alexander  1 1 ,  Czar  of  Russia, 
freed  forty  million  serfs.     Jesus  never  at- 

12 


Mbat  1f5  Cbristtanit^? 


tempted  to  free  a  single  slave.  The  Eng- 
lish barons  wrested  the  Magna  Charta  from 
King  John.  Jesus  never  wrote  even  a 
declaration  of  rights.  Martin  Luther 
preached  himself  out  of  the  Catholic 
Church  and  led  the  revolt  of  the  Germans 
from  Rome.  Jesus  Christ  always  remained 
a  Jew  and  did  not  even  go  beyond  his 
own  country.  Richard  Cobden  and  John 
Bright  tried  to  advance  England's  power 
by  repealing  the  Corn  Laws ;  Thomas 
Jefferson  wrote  a  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence for  this  Republic.  Jesus  Christ 
never  attempted  anything  of  the  sort.  He 
did  not  attempt  even  to  found  a  church 
militant. 

Political  organizations  have  their  ap- 
pointed tasks.  A  world  in  which  there 
are  many  persons  must  be  an  orderly 
world,  if  the  individuals  are  to  enjoy  their 
rights.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Greek 
theorists,  like  Aristotle,  were  correct  in  re- 
garding ethics  and  politics  as  two  sides  of 
society ;    that   the   complete   moral    indi- 

13 


Wbat  irs  (Tbrtstiamti^  ? 

vidual  is  a  complete  political  individual. 
Man  is  a  complete  man  only  as  he  is  a 
complete  citizen.  The  individual  can 
reach  his  full  stature,  therefore,  only  under 
the  best  possible  government,  and  the  de- 
velopment of  the  individual  and  the  State 
go  along  together.  Now  all  this  may  be 
admitted,  and  even  then  we  may  say  that 
there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  in  Christ's 
words  of  identifying  his  salvation  with 
political  reform.  He  does  not  mean  that 
his  abundant  life  is  the  same  as  political 
freedom,  but  that  political  freedom  is  inci- 
dental to  Christian  freedom.  It  is  not 
essential  to  Christian  freedom.  Christ 
differs  from  the  Greek,  therefore,  in  pla- 
cing emphasis  upon  the  importance  of  the 
individual,  in  making  the  individual  essen- 
tial, the  State  incidental.  Christ  never 
taught  salvation  by  organization.  Chris- 
tianity may  have  ameliorated  the  tyranny 
of  governments  during  these  nineteen  hun- 
dred years  or  it  may  not.  The  abundant 
life  can  be  lived  by  the  individual  under 


14 


Wbat  Ifs  Cbrtstiantti^  ? 


any  regime.  It  flourished  with  the  refugee 
Huguenots  in  their  mountain  fastnesses ; 
with  the  Roman  Christians  in  the  cata- 
combs ;  and  it  flourishes  in  modern  states. 
"  Florence,"  said  Savonarola,  "  will  take 
care  of  itself  if  the  Florentines  would  but 
reform  themselves." 

Indeed,  the  Christian  is  in  one  respect 
like  the  Stoic.  He  is  a  citizen  of  the 
world.  All  men  are  his  countrymen  who 
have  a  part  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  quite  independent 
of  political  kingdoms.  Although  a  mem- 
ber of  the  political  State  where  he  lives, 
and  although  the  character  of  that  political 
State  depends  upon  his  character  and  that 
of  others,  he  is,  nevertheless,  a  spiritual 
cosmopolitan.  The  Christian  individual 
finds  his  salvation  in  himself,  for  in  him- 
self is  the  abundance  that  makes  his  lowly 
life  rich. 


15 


mbat  Us  Cbristianlt^  ? 


Ill 

CHRISTIANITY  AND  SOCIETY 

fN  the  second  place,  it  may  be  safely 
asserted  that  the  abundant  life  which 
Christ  taught  does  not  rest  essentially  in 
proper  social  conditions.  Jesus  Christ  was 
not  a  social  reformer.  This  larger  defini- 
tion of  life  was  not  to  be  obtained  by  mak- 
ing for  his  followers  larger  social  conditions. 
Christ  was  not  interested  in  making  the 
rich  poorer  or  the  poor  richer.  He  had 
no  theory  of  pedagogy.  He  did  not  try 
to  organize  charities,  to  found  hospitals, 
culture  clubs,  or  libraries,  or  to  set  in  mo- 
tion pension  or  insurance  measures. 

One  aspect  of  social  life  he  seemed  to 
have  at  heart ;  and  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  consideration  he  gave  to  this 
might  at  first  blush  make  us  think  him  to 
be  a   social   reformer.     This   at  least  has 

i6 


Mbat  Us  (Xbrtstianit^  ? 


plausibility,  while  that  of  his  political 
leadership  has  none.  He  was  continually- 
talking  to  the  poor,  about  the  poor,  and 
drawing  analogies  favorable  to  the  poor. 
He  condemns  the  rich  while  he  makes  the 
poor  his  disciples.  He  speaks  of  the  de- 
ceitfulness  of  riches.  Matt.  13  :  22.  The 
offering  of  the  widow's  two  mites  is  to  be 
esteemed  above  the  abundant  gift  of  the 
rich,  Mark  12  :  41.  The  reward  of  Laz- 
arus is  compared  to  the  punishment  of  the 
rich  man.  "  Woe  to  you  that  are  rich, 
for  ye  have  received  your  consolation," 
Luke  6  :  24.  How  difficult,  said  he,  for 
the  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle ;  the  same  difficulty  would  the  rich 
man  find  in  entering  the  kingdom  of  God. 
He  enjoins  the  rich  young  man  that  he 
sell  his  goods  and  give  the  money  to  the 
poor;  and  he  sent  forth  his  disciples  on 
their  mission  to  preach,  saying  to  them, 
"  Provide  neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  brass 
in  your  purses,  nor  scrip  for  your  journey,'' 
Matt.  10:9.      Furthermore,  he  praises  the 


17 


mbat  ITS  Cbristtanitp  ? 


poor  in  spirit,  those  that  mourn,  those  that 
hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness,  and 
uses  these  analogies  as  if  all  his  sympathies 
were  with  the  weak,  the  humble  and  the 
downtrodden. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  there  arose  early 
in  the  Christian  Church  two  theories  re- 
specting Christ's  attitude  toward  society. 
Both  these  traditional  theories  are  based 
on  the  assumption  that  the  essential  prin- 
ciple in  Christ's  mission  is  social.  Some 
assert  that  Christ  was  a  socialist,  and  that 
he  advocated  an  equality  of  riches  among 
the  different  members  of  society.  Others, 
like  St.  Francis  of  Assisi  and  the  Monas- 
teries, maintain  that  the  mission  of  Christ 
was  to  establish  a  universal  pauperism  in 
order  that  the  kingdom  of  God  might  be 
the  more  easily  erected. 

Now  the  theory  that  Christ  was  a  social- 
ist or  not  a  socialist,  that  is,  the  assump- 
tion that  the  foundation  of  his  mission  was 
economic  organization  of  some  sort,  is 
based  on  the  above  purely  negative  evi- 


Timbat  fs  Cbrtstianttp  ? 


dence.  There  is  no  positive  evidence  that 
Christ  in  the  shghtest  degree  tried  to  effect 
any  particular  economic  change  either  in 
finance,  education  or  charities.  All  his 
denunciation  of  the  rich  Jews  was  because 
their  condition  withheld  them  from  the 
abundant  life.  All  his  praise  of  the  pov- 
erty of  the  Jew  was  because  he  found  that 
the  poor  had  abundant  life.  Historians 
tell  us  that  all  the  rich  Jews  of  the  time 
were  bound  fast  to  the  empty  forms  and 
conventions  of  a  traditional  religion.  The 
poor  were  oppressed  by  this  rich  aristo- 
cratic church-following  to  such  a  degree 
that  the  poor  did  not  have  the  opportunity 
to  worship  in  the  church  of  their  fathers. 
They  were  shut  out  from  the  church  ;  they 
could  not  lift  their  eyes  to  the  Temple. 
Yet  they  were  humble  and  religious  while 
the  rich  were  ostentatious  and  mere  per- 
formers of  a  ritual.  Thus  the  polemic  of 
Christ  against  the  rich  was  really  against 
the  oppressive  ritualists.  How  much  more 
blessed,  therefore,  was  the  life  of  the  poor 


19 


miDat  ITS  Cbristianiti^  ? 


in    spirit,    fbr    theirs    is    the    kingdom    of 
heaven. 

The  mission  of  Christianity  is  to  men 
not  as  rich  or  poor,  educated  or  ignorant, 
but  as  individuals.  Christianity  is  essen- 
tially a  development  of  individuality.  In- 
cidentally it  may  or  may  not  save  society. 
Society  has  always  been  poor  ;  it  has  never 
been  more  than  a  year  from  starvation 
point.  Society  has  always  been  ignorant ; 
even  Newton  said  that  he  had  picked  only 
a  pebble  from  the  beach  of  truth.  Society 
has  always  contained  races  ready  to  spring 
at  each  other's  throats.  We  are  not  to 
suppose  that  the  importance  of  Christian- 
ity to  us  depends  upon  its  effect  on  the 
character  of  society.  The  desire  to  reform 
society  may  rest  on  good  motives,  but  they 
are  not  the  essential  Christian  motives. 
They  are  either  incidental  to  Christianity 
or  have  sprung  from  foreign  sources.  The 
task  of  the  Christian  citizen  and  the  Chris- 
tian man  is  not  the  reformation  of  society 
but  the  living  of  his  highest  self.     "  How 


20 


mbat  Us  CbrtBtiantt^  ? 


did  Christianity  arise  and  spread  abroad 
among  men  ? "  asks  Thomas  Carlyle. 
"Was  it  by  institutions  and  establishments 
and  well  arranged  systems  of  mechanism  ? 
Not  so ;  on  the  contrary,  in  all  past  and  ex- 
isting institutions  for  those  ends  its  divine 
spirit  has  been  found  to  languish  and  decay. 
It  arose  in  the  mystic  deeps  of  man's  soul ; 
and  was  spread  abroad  by  the  ^preaching 
of  the  word,'  by  simple  although  natural 
individual  efforts  ;  and  flew  like  hallowed 
fire  till  all  were  purified  and  illuminated 
by  it." 


21 


mbat  Us  Cbrtstianit^  ? 


IV 

CHRISTIANITY     AND     THE 
HEALING    OF    DISEASE 

♦fFN  the  third  place,  it  seems  to  me  that 
II  the  heahng  of  disease  is  not  an  essen- 
tial part  of  Christianity,  and  that  health  is 
only  incidental  to  the  abundant  life.  There 
is  nothing  inherently  improbable  in  Christ's 
power  of  healing.  There  are  some  twenty- 
five  cases  of  healing  by  him,  but  the  dis- 
eases are  all  of  a  limited  variety.  They 
are  in  the  main  deafness,  blindness,  dumb- 
ness, nervous  troubles  and  skin  diseases. 
The  leaders  of  the  great  modern  mystical 
movement  of  Christian  Science  claim  that 
under  their  hands  no  disease  has  power. 
This  is  much  more  than  Christ  ever  saw 
fit  to  claim  for  himself.  However,  be  this 
as  it  may,  it  is  absurd  to  assert  that  Jesus 
Christ    set   himself  up   as    a   professional 

22 


IKIlbat  Hb  ChxistimiW 


physician  of  the  body.  1  am  aware  that 
in  the  writings  which  form  the  canon  of 
the  Christian  Science  Church  it  is  insisted 
that  salvation  consists  primarily  in  redemp- 
tion from  sin ;  that  the  cure  of  disease  is 
secondary.  But  practically  the  emphasis 
is  laid  on  the  cure  of  disease,  and  the  great 
claims  of  that  Church  for  recognition  are 
based  upon  the  wonderful  cures  of  the 
body.  The  contrast  is  striking  between 
the  Methodist  who  glories  in  his  salvation 
from  sin,  and  the  Christian  Scientist  who 
glories  in  his  salvation  from  disease.  I 
have  elsewhere  expressed  my  welcome  to 
the  Christian  Science  movement  as  a  symp- 
tom of  a  turning  away  of  the  present  age 
from  the  materialism  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  I  dare  predict  a  great  idealistic 
movement  as  a  consequence  in  the  next 
twenty-five  years.  But  such  idealism  will 
not  depend  upon  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
from  disease,  and  on  the  whole  Christian 
Science  may  be  said  to  have  used  a  sub- 
ordinate aspect  of  Christianity  dispropor- 

23 


Wbat  1[6  Cbdstianitp 


tionately.  No  one  can  enter  sympatheti- 
cally into  the  life  of  Christ  without  feeling 
that  Christ  made  his  cures  of  disease  not 
only  incidental  to  his  mission  but  abso- 
lutely unessential  to  it.  He  plainly  de- 
clared that  he  did  not  come  to  perform  mira- 
cles. When  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees 
tried  to  induce  him  to  show  a  sign  from 
Heaven,  he  answered,  "  A  wicked  and 
adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a  sign." 
Are  we,  in  fact,  to  weigh  Christianity  in 
the  balance  with  the  cure  of  disease.^  Is 
Christianity  a  failure  to  you  if  your  body 
is  still  racked  with  pain  ?  Do  you  miss  its 
essential  teaching  if  you  cannot  transcend 
the  demands  of  hunger  and  thirst?  Does 
Christianity  fail  if  all  men  are  not  well 
men  ?  Now  this  is  a  critical  test  of  Chris- 
tianity and  the  most  modern  applied  test. 
It  is  a  false  test  because  Christ  never  made 
it  a  test.  Some  commentators  like  Farrar 
maintain  that  what  St.  Paul  calls  a  thorn 
in  the  flesh  was  a  disease  of  his  eyes.  Was 
St.  Paul  a  Christian  ? 


24 


Mbat  lis  Cbrtsttantt^  ? 


A  perfectly  healthy  man  is  not  neces- 
sarily a  Christian.  A  sick  man  is  not 
necessarily  a  heathen.  No  doubt  there  is 
an  intimate  relation  between  disease  and 
sin.  Human  malfeasance  can  be  found 
usually  to  be  the  near  or  remote  cause  of 
disease.  But  we  are  all  suffering  from  the 
sins  of  our  ancestors.  Furthermore,  decay 
comes  naturally  to  everyone  in  the  course 
of  time.  What  an  impracticable  theory 
Christianity  would  be  if,  because  of  all  the 
infirmities  the  fiesh  brings  upon  us,  the 
abundant  life  of  the  soul  would  thereby  be 
denied  us.  In  the  words  of  St.  Paul  we 
are  "  always  bearing  about  in  the  body 
the  dying  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  order  that 
the  life  also  of  Jesus  may  be  made  mani- 
fest in  our  body."      i  Cor.  iv  :  lo. 


25 


Mbat  Ifs  Cbrtstlanit^  ? 


V 

CHRISTIANITY  AND  MORALITY 

^^HE  meaning  of  the  salvation  of  Jesus 
Vl^  Christ  has  been  thus  far  defined  by 
showing  what  relation  it  has  to  poKtical  law, 
to  social  conditions,  and  to  disease.  Christ 
came  to  save  the  individual,  not  the  politi- 
cal organization  ;  Christ  came  to  give  us 
religious  content  in  our  social  conditions, 
not  to  change  those  conditions ;  and  as  to 
disease,  he  would  not  save  us  from  disease 
of  the  body  but  make  us  contented  with 
our  bodies.  We  have,  therefore,  tried  to 
show  that  greater  Christianity  is  the  same 
as  greater  individuality,  and  that  the  salva- 
tion of  Christianity  is  more  abundant  in- 
dividual life. 

A  profounder  problem  now  confronts 
us  :  in  what  aspect  of  this  individual  life 
are    we    to  expect    to  find    abundance  of 

26 


Wbat  ITS  Cbrtsttantti^  ? 


life  ?  Shall  we  find  it  in  the  individual 
objective  moral  life  or  in  the  subjective 
religious  nature  ?  Does  Christ  emphasize 
individual  conduct  or  individual  spirit- 
uality ?  Does  Christianity  make  its 
working  principle  consist  in  the  attitude 
of  the  body  or  that  of  the  mind  ?  Does 
Christianity  give  us  a  new  definition  of 
morality  or  religion  ? 

Now  there  are  two  possible  attitudes  to 
be  taken  upon  this  question.  One  is, 
that  there  is  no  difference  between  reli- 
gion and  morality.  It  may  be  said  that 
the  truly  religious  man  is  always  moral, 
just  as  it  might  be  said  that  true  individ- 
uals will  make  good  governments,  good 
social  conditions,  and  will  always  be  well. 
This  reply,  as  I  have  said  at  the  outset, 
only  confuses  us  as  to  the  essential  and  the 
incidental  aspects  of  Christianity.  It  may 
be  pointed  out  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  do 
make  a  distinction  between  religion  and 
morality  because  we  have  two  different 
words.     The  words  would  never  have  been 


27 


Mbat  1F6  Cbristiamtp  ? 


coined  unless  man  had  a  difference  in 
mind. 

Laying  aside  this  sweeping  claim,  viz., 
that  religion  equals  morality,  suppose  it 
is  said  that  even  if  they  be  different,  mo- 
rality is  the  only  form  in  which  religion 
finds  expression.  Suppose,  for  example, 
the  case  in  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of 
Matthew  is  cited,  where  Christ  separates 
the  sheep  from  the  goats  on  the  ground  of 
morality  :  "  I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  fed 
me  :  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  drink  : 
I  was  a  stranger,  and  ye  took  me  in  :  naked, 
and  ye  clothed  me :  I  was  sick,  and  ye 
ministered  unto  me :  I  was  in  prison,  and 
ye  visited  me."  When  ?  they  asked  him  ; 
and  he  said.  When  ye  did  it  to  one  of 
the  least  and  humblest  of  humanity.  The 
acts  of  the  good  Samaritan  and  the  gift  of 
a  cup  of  cold  water  are  among  other  in- 
stances cited  to  prove  that  our  Lord  placed 
emphasis  upon  conduct  as  the  only  medium 
which  religion  can  employ  to  express  itself. 

While  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Christ 


28 


Wbat  lis  Cbristtanttp? 


does  teach  that  morahty  is  one  means  by 
which  rehgion  finds  its  expression,  it  can 
with  equal  safety  be  asserted  that  he  does 
not  think  it  the  only  means.  Did  he 
not,  forsooth,  commend  Mary  who  sat  at 
his  feet,  and  say  to  the  complaints  of 
Martha  who  had  been  active  in  serving 
him,  "  But  one  thing  is  needful,  and  Mary 
hath  chosen  that  good  part "  ?  Again,  the 
father  is  commended  for  killing  the  fatted 
calf  for  the  return  of  the  son  who  had 
been  a  debauchee,  while  the  moral  eldest 
son  had  never  received  special  favor  from 
his  father.  Then  there  are  Mary  Mag- 
dalene and  Peter  and  Judas,  who  were 
hardly  immaculate  morally  but  were 
favored  by  our  Lord.  The  parable  of 
the  one  lost  sheep  is  also  a  case  in  point. 
And  how  often  in  direct  instruction  does 
Christ  explicitly  emphasize  belief  as  a 
means  of  salvation.  He  speaks  of  some 
as  slow  of  heart  to  believe,  Luke  24  :  25, 
and  of  some  "  that  ye  have  also  seen  me 
and  believe  not,"  John  6  :  ^6.     Then  he 

29 


Mbat  fls  Cbrtstianit^  ? 


uttered  this  dictum  in  several  places,  the 
meaning  of  which  is  unequivocal,  "  He 
that  beHeveth  on  me  hath  everlasting 
life,"  John  6  :  47.  Christ  used  belief 
and  faith  and  repentance  as  evidence  of 
religious  expression  and  as  sufficient 
ground  for  his  performance  of  miracles. 
I  am  not  quoting  much  from  St.  John's 
gospel  in  this  connection  on  account  of 
neo-Platonism  in  it.  The  writer  of  that 
gospel  makes  intuitive  belief  in  Christ 
the  chief  expression  of  religion. 

The  most  notable  fathers  of  the  Church 
have  never  identified  religion  and  moral- 
ity, nor  have  they  considered  morality  as 
the  only  or  the  most  important  means  of 
expressing  rehgion.  The  Mystics  in  the 
Church,  both  the  Protestants  and  the 
Roman  Catholics,  have  referred,  some  to 
intuitive  thought,  some  to  feeling,  as  the 
psychological  escape  from  the  sins  of  the 
world  and  as  the  way  of  unity  with  God. 
Most  Christian  theologians  have  used 
faith  and  belief  as  the  chief  means  of  sal- 


30 


TPmbat  lis  Cbrtsttantt^  ? 


vation.      Luther's  slogan  was  salvation  by 
faith  as  opposed    to   salvation  by  works. 

In  courts  of  law,  account  has  to  be 
made  of  conduct  as  the  most  important 
evidence  with  reference  to  crime.  For 
society  can  regulate  itself  only  by  the 
good  conduct  of  its  citizens.  But  in  mat- 
ters spiritual  the  motive,  the  attitude  of 
mind,  is  of  supreme  importance.  The 
larger  meaning  of  life,  the  abundant  life, 
is  life  within.  As  Jesus  says,  "  Not  lo 
here,  lo  there,  but  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  within  you."  Hell  may  be  paved  with 
good  intentions,  but  heaven  consists  in 
good  intentions.  The  larger  self  that  we 
strive  for  and  fail  to  get,  our  ideals,  our 
ambitions,  are  all  that  compose  our  real 
selves.  Conduct  is  only  an  incidental 
thing  —  otherwise  Christianity  is  a  failure. 
The  abundant  life  is  subjective,  not  objec- 
tive. 

There  is  one  saying  of  Christ  quoted  in 
the  three  synoptic  Gospels  that  has  al- 
ways seemed  to  me  to  show  how  much  he 

31 


Mbat  1F5  Cbrtsttanlt^  ? 


emphasized  the  subjective  aspect  of  Hfe. 
"  Whosoever  will  save  his  life  shall  lose 
it ;  and  whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for 
my  sake  shall  find  it,"  Matt.  14 :  24. 
This  epigram  has  always  meant  to  me 
that  whatever  one's  outward  condition, 
however  desperate  external  circumstances 
may  appear,  there  is  that  super-objective 
sphere  of  living  that  no  one  can  take 
away.  Whosoever  may  try  to  save  the 
possessions  of  his  selfish  self  will  lose 
them ;  but  whosoever  lives  that  larger, 
higher  self,  that  self  which  finds  itself 
identical  with  all  other  selves,  he  saves 
himself.  It  was  Peer  Gynt,  in  one  of 
Ibsen's  masterpieces,  who  followed  the 
world  about  to  gain  a  superior  selfish 
self,  only  to  find  that  his  real  self  was 
after  all  in  his  heart,  in  love,  in  unselfish- 
ness. There  is  the  instance  in  Browning's 
poem  of  the  tyrant  who  tries  to  destroy 
a  powerless  enemy.  The  tyrant  brought 
all  his  magnificent  power  to  consum- 
mate  the    destruction    of  this    grovelling 

32 


XPdlbat  1F5  Cbristtantt^  ? 


wretch,  when 

**  Just  my  vengeance  complete 
The  man  sprang  to  his  feet. 
Stood  erect,  caught  at  God's  skirts  and  prayed  ; 
So  I  was  afraid." 

The  reward  of  the  abundant  life  is  just 
this  spiritual  consciousness  that  is  inde- 
pendent of  others;  not  to  be  given  by- 
others  and  not  to  be  taken  by  them. 


33 


XKabat  ITS  (Tbttsttantt^  ? 


VI 

CHRISTIANITY    AND     SCIENCE 

'^^HERE  is  one  more  aspect  of  this 
\m  question  to  be  considered.  We 
must  remember  that  we  are  trying  to  find 
out  what  Christ  means  by  abundance  of  Hfe. 
We  are  trying  to  give  a  definition  of  Hfe  as 
he  interpreted  it.  In  the  first  place,  it  has 
appeared  that  this  abundance  is  got  by 
individuality  and  not  from  incidental  so- 
cial conditions.  In  the  next  place,  this 
abundance  consists  not  so  much  in  objec- 
tive conduct  as  in  subjective  spirit. 
That  is  to  say,  the  essential  principle  of 
Christianity  is  the  spirit  of  the  individual ; 
his  political  and  social  environment,  his 
condition  of  body,  his  morality,  are  all 
incidental.  These  incidental  matters  may 
not  be  favorable  ;  and  yet  the  abundant 
life,  the  Christian  life,  the  life  important 

34 


mbat  ITS  Cbrtsttantt^  ? 


to  the  good  citizen  and  good  man,  may 
nevertheless  be  enjoyed.  Thus  our  defi- 
nition of  the  salvation  of  Christianity  is 
narrowed  down  to  the  life  of  spiritual 
individuality ;  and  our  definition  of  the 
purpose  of  Christ  to  that  of  making  men 
such  spiritual  individuals  whatever  may 
be  their  environment. 

But  our  discussion  of  the  matter  is  not 
complete  until  we  narrow  our  definition 
further.  What  is  this  spiritual  life  of  the 
individual  ?  Does  it  consist  of  intellec- 
tual life,  or  life  of  feeling?  Is  the  essen- 
tial principle  of  Christianity  the  holding 
of  certain  theories,  or  is  it  an  emotional 
attitude?  Is  this  life  enlarged  by  know- 
ing more  or  by  feeling  more  ?  For  the 
mental  life  may  pyschologically  consist 
either  in  the  receptivity  of  impressions 
from  without  or  in  a  general  attitude 
toward  those  impressions. 

Not  many  years  ago  the  New  England 
Socinian  schism  came  to  a  head  when 
Theodore  Parker  preached  what  is  now  a 

35 


mbat  1f6  Cbristtanit^? 


celebrated  sermon  on  "The  Transient 
and  Permanent  in  Christianity.'*  Certain 
dogmas  he  considered  permanent,  others 
incidental.  Parker  was  loudly  con- 
demned by  the  conservative  theologians 
of  his  time  because  he  had  selected  dog- 
ma as  incidental  which  they  had  deemed 
essential.  It  is  immaterial  to  our  pur- 
pose what  the  differences  were,  but  it  is 
important  to  know  that  the  quarrel  was 
doctrinal.  The  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment, of  the  number  of  persons  in  the 
Godhead,  of  miracles,  is  thus  and  thus, 
said  Parker.  Go  to,  it  is  not,  said  his 
opponents.  Both  disputants  in  the  dis- 
cussion assumed  that  the  essentials  of 
Christianity  are  doctrinal,  while  the  inci- 
dentals are  other  doctrines.  Such  as- 
sumptions would  not  pass  unchallenged 
now.  While  it  is  perfectly  natural  to  wish 
to  define  in  exact  terms  just  what  so  im- 
portant a  matter  as  Christianity  is,  the 
attempt  to  reduce  the  essential  principle 
of   Christianity  to   intellectual    terms  has 


mbat  1[s  Cbrtsttanttp  ? 


always  been  the  bane  to  its  progress.  In 
regard  to  this  attempt  in  Christian  circles 
to  think  of  Christianity  in  purely  doctri- 
nal terms,  Adolf  Harnack  says,  "  How 
great  a  departure  from  what  Christ 
thought  and  enjoined  is  involved  in  put- 
ting a  Christological  creed  in  the  forefront 
of  the  Gospel,  and  in  teaching  that  before 
man  can  approach  Christianity  he  must 
learn  to  think  rightly  about  Christianity." 
Observe  how  the  map  of  Christian  his- 
tory is  dotted  with  creeds  as  thick  as 
milestones,  and  how  vainly  man  has 
attempted  to  formulate  Christianity  in  set 
terms. 

For  intellectual  formulations  like  those 
of  natural  science,  philosophy  and  theol- 
ogy you  would  not  go  to  Christianity. 
For  information  about  the  world  of  na- 
ture you  would  turn  to  modern  science  and 
sit  at  the  feet  of  Newton,  Darwin,  Weis- 
mann,  Helmholtz,  Wundt,  Ranke,  Roent- 
gen and  Klein.  Jesus  Christ  was  not  the 
intellectual  exponent  of  biology,  mathe- 

37 


Mbat  ITS  Cbrtsttanttp  ? 


matics,  physics,  physiology,  psychology, 
history  or  chemistry.  So  for  intellectual 
formulations  in  philosophy  and  theology 
you  would  go  to  Kant,  Aristotle,  Athana- 
sius  or  St.  Augustine.  Jesus  Christ 
elaborated  no  system  of  philosophy,  nor 
was  he  the  author  of  a  creed.  He  did 
not  publish  a  book  nor  burn  a  heretic. 
I  once  made  a  collection  of  the  words  of 
Christ  to  see  if  I  could  find,  apart  from 
his  narrators,  what  intellectual  doctrines 
he  taught.  For  a  long  time  I  was  very 
uncertain.  At  one  time  I  thought  he  was 
a  pessimist,  at  another  an  optimist ;  from 
some  passages  he  seemed  to  speak  plainly 
as  a  fatalist,  in  others  as  an  advocate  of 
freedom  of  will.  My  perplexity  was 
great,  because,  while  Christ  seemed  to  be 
a  thoroughly  consistent  teacher,  his  doc- 
trine refused  to  take  on,  nevertheless,  the 
limitations  of  the  ordinary  philosophical 
and  theological  categories.  The  solution 
of  the  difficulty  came  to  me  —  and  it  is 
so  easy  a  solution  that  you  will  wonder 


38 


TPdlbat  1FS  Cbrtsttantt^  ? 


how  I  missed  it  at  all.  Jesus  was  not  a 
teacher  of  philosophy  or  of  theology  or  of 
science,  and  if  you  try  to  make  him  one 
of  these  you  will  miss  the  very  inmost 
and  essential  core  of  his  mission.  He 
was  a  teacher  of  religion.  Religion  is  as 
much  deeper  than  philosophy  and  theol- 
ogy as  music  in  the  heart  of  a  musician  is 
deeper  than  the  music  he  can  compose ; 
as  the  ideal  face  which  the  artist  would 
paint  is  more  sublime  than  the  face  he 
actually  puts  on  the  canvas.  In  the 
words  so  often  quoted  of  Pico  Mirandola, 
in  his  famous  letter  to  Aldus  Manutius, 
"  Philosophia  veritatem  quaerit,  theologia 
invenit,  religio  possidet  '*  (Philosophy 
seeks  truth,  theology  discovers  it,  religion 
has  it).  Religion,  this  attitude  of  mind, 
this  emotional  expression,  the  lower  self 
seeking  the  higher,  or,  as  Jesus  defines  it, 
"  love  for  God  "  —  this  is  the  possession 
that  gives  abundance  of  life.  Philosophy 
and  theology  are  only  ancillary  maidens 
to  religion.     So  also  is  science.     Yet  this 

39 


mbat  irs  Cbrtsttantt^  ? 


casts  no  censure  upon  philosophy  and 
theology.  It  shows  them  merely  to  be 
incidental  to  Christianity,  just  as  political 
society,  social  conditions,  health  and  mo- 
rality are.  But  to  find  the  thirty-nine 
articles,  the  Athanasian  creed,  the  mysti- 
cism of  Spinoza  or  the  idealism  of  Hegel, 
in  the  simple  attitude  and  purpose  of 
Christ,  is  like  the  bewildering  parlor  magic 
of  the  travelling  operator.  Christ  was  a 
revealer,  a  teacher  of  religion,  a  spiritual 
saviour.  He  was  the  way,  the  truth,  the 
life ;  or,  to  put  the  matter  in  psychologi- 
cal terms,  he  expressed  the  true  emotional 
attitude  for  the  individual.  Farther  than 
that  specific  purpose  he  did  not  go. 


40 


Wibat  Us  Cbrlsttanltp? 


VII 
CONCLUSION 

-^  p4  OU  and  I  are,  moreover,  unapprecia- 
JJ^  tive  of  the  greatness  of  Jesus'  mission 
if  we  complain  of  the  limitations  that  he 
himself  imposed  upon  it.  We  are  mis- 
taken and  indiscriminate  followers  of  him 
if  we  try  to  extend  that  mission  so  that 
he  becomes  a  theologian,  a  scientist,  an 
economist,  a  politician  or  a  physician. 
Christ  was  simply  a  personal  teacher  of 
religion.  In  contrast  to  the  influence  of 
the  two  vast  organizations  of  his  time  — 
the  Roman  Empire  and  the  Jewish 
Church  —  he  exerted  a  personal  religious 
influence  upon  personal  lives.  And 
to-day,  amid  the  loud  pretensions  of  the 
politician,  scientist,  and  other  advocates 
of  organization,  he  proclaims  merely  the 
absolute  monarchy  of  the  soul,  the  inde- 

41 


mbat  Hb  Cbrtstianttp  ? 


pendence  of  the  peaceful  heart.  When 
you  and  I  are  called  to  choose  between 
these  things  that  I  have  called  incidentals 
to  Christianity  and  the  essential  personal 
Christian  life,  we  may,  in  our  moments  of 
anxious  doubt,  well  remember  the  words 
of  Hawthorne  in  his  conclusion  to  "  The 
Scarlet  Letter."  He  says,  "  Be  true ! 
Be  true !  Be  true  !  Show  freely  to  the 
world,  if  not  your  worst,  yet  some  trait 
whereby  the  worst  may  be  inferred." 
Christianity  demands  that  we  shall  at 
least  be  true,  whether  incidentally  we 
show  our  best  or  our  worst.  You  may 
define  Christianity  as  self-culture  if  you 
will,  provided  you  define  culture  as  pol- 
ished sincerity.  You  can  never  impart 
the  truth  to  others  unless  you  have  it 
folded  closely  in  your  heart  of  hearts ; 
you  can  never  be  in  any  small  degree  the 
way,  the  truth,  and  the  life  to  others,  as 
Christ  is  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life 
to  you,  unless  you  yourself  have  abun- 
dance   of  life.      If  you    are  a    hypocrite, 

42 


Timbat  irs  Cbristiantt^  ? 


you  will  hardly  deceive  the  world,  but 
there  is  danger  that  you  may  deceive 
yourself.  You  can  never  give  the  Chris- 
tian peace  to  the  Fihpino,  the  Negro,  and 
the  Indian,  if  you  yourself  do  not  have  it. 
Yet  you  are  not  obliged  to  go  far  afield 
to  find  the  seduction  to  mistake  the  inci- 
dental show  for  the  inner  and  essential 
peace.  Here  is  the  sunset  shining  in 
your  eyes ;  there  is  nothing  greater. 
Here  is  a  tree  loaded  with  fruit ;  there  is 
nothing  greater.  Here  is  the  organized 
political,  economic,  and  scientific  life  of 
which  your  life  is  part ;  there  is  nothing 
greater.  Yet  in  all  their  greatness  these 
things  are  only  the  environment  of  your- 
self. You  are ;  these  things  are  inci- 
dental. They  perish  ;  they  are  external ; 
but  the  peaceful  heart  endures.  Christi- 
anity is  the  religion  of  the  ever  present 
moment  and  the  inner  life.  For  when  in 
the  great  judgment  you  shall  stand,  it 
will  never  be  asked  who  won  at  Santiago 
and    Port   Arthur,  but  what  were  you  at 

43 


Mbat  11s  Cbristiantti^  T 


Santiago  and  Port  Arthur  ?  Nor  will  it 
then  be  a  matter  of  relatively  great  impor- 
tance whether  you  invented  the  tele- 
phone, discovered  the  North  Pole,  or  es- 
tablished a  great  business  enterprise ;  but 
have  you  had  in  every  situation  the  peace 
that  passeth  understanding.  This  is 
what  Christ  means  by  abundance  of  life. 


44 


Date  Due 

1 

filv  1?  P  * 

1 

"I 

W/  1  G     ' 

-«       i 

i 

f 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01016  1885 


